He accuses the other blog of spreading misinformation, but, of course, I know more than a few individuals who believe Mr. Baford's blog is full of misinformation (as well as utter rudeness to anyone with whom he disagrees).

The good people at the PAS obviously have more to do than to mediate disputes amongst bloggers or to take issue with everything that might be said in the blogosphere.

On a related note, I understand that Mr. Barford's critical book about the PAS has evidently been delayed by the publisher once again. One can only imagine the reason why.

6 comments:

The PAS has received thirteen million pounds to provide archaeological outreach on these matters to the British public. It is not doing so. The British public (who pay for this) consist of more than a few thousand (6000) metal detecting club members. I am not asking PAS to "step in for me" as informing members of the public about archaeological conservation is not my job. But it is theirs, why are they not doing it?

The PAS budget covers all the costs of administering the program of which public outreach is but a part. That includes the website, the recording of finds, the FLO's who do outreach to local clubs who are important stakeholders. Great bang for the buck or pound in this case as far as I am concerned.

If you were to look at the material created when it was set up, you would learn that the primary function of the PAS is public outreach, the database and all the rest are tools to do this, and not an end in themselves.

The main group of stakeholders in the common archaeological heritage are the 54,340 000 people who do NOT go out metal detecting on Britain's archaeological sites. They are not served at all by PAS visits to metal detecting clubs, but are expected to foot the bill of the PAS failing to acknowledge that and their needs.

What "public money" for archaeology are you talking about? Do you know what "developer funding" is and what role it plays in British archaeology and Cultural Resource Management?

Nevertheless, paying for the PAS is a very large chunk out of the money allocated for archaeology in England from public funds available for "Culture, Media and Sport" - because that is the main source of PAS funding, as state-funded (and local government-funded) archaeological outreach, the "pet programme" as you put it of about fifty professional archaeologists and heritage professionals. The trouble is this money is taken from that available for preservation too, of historic buildings, cultural landscapes, policy creation, conservation, documentation and all the rest of the functions of national heritage preservation agencies and the only thing it is "preserving" really is the hobby of artefact hunting from criticism.

And PAS and the Treasure Act benefit the most people and do the most good overall. An archaeological program with a real base beyonds archaeologists themselves! No wonder it has been largely spared budget cuts facing other programs with very small constituencies. And at least the money is spent at home.

Contrast this modest program with the millions upon millions the US has spent on Iraqi, Egyptian and Afghan archaeology. Well, at least the millions spent for Egyptian archaeology (the part that was not probably skimmed off) has helped foster tourism as an additional benefit.

Budget pressures will no doubt impact the public monies spent on archaeology. As they should. There are frankly a lot more pressing needs that should be addressed than make work programs for archaeologists.

I'm not against archaeological reserach, but much of it should be funded privately in my opinion.

About Me

Peter Tompa has collected ancient coins for thirty years. He has written and lectured about cultural property issues for a decade. He is a contributor to a chapter on numismatics in K. Fitz Gibbon ed., "Who Owns the Past?" (Rutgers 2005). He has lobbied members of the U.S. Congress and the Executive Branch in an effort to ensure that the small businesses of the numismatic trade receive fair treatment from federal regulators. He currently serves as a board member of the Cultural Policy Research Institute and the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild. He also has been a vice-chair of the American Bar Association's Art & Cultural Heritage Law Committee. His advocacy has received notice in the media, including the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Art Newspaper and the Voice of America. He hopes his views as a collector and lawyer will provide a counterpoint to the "archaeology over all" perspective found in most blogs about cultural property issues. This Web page is a public resource for general information and opinion about cultural property issues, and is not intended to be a source for legal advice.